Back in 2009 I objected to the application by East Lothian Council to install CCTV on a number of grounds, not least because I find the creeping intrusion into our lives of the state and large business, aided and abetted by a supine media, morally dubious and unnecessary as well as contributing to an increasing sense of public anxiety.
The proposed camera installations would have a negative impact on character of the Dunbar Conservation Area.
The proposal to use the finger post outside Abbeylands was actually dropped (they realised this was utterly daft?) and the CCTV fixed to the lamppost instead. But hardly an outbreak of commonsense, as the existing lamppost apparently was not strong enough to take an extra couple of kg, so they erected a monstrously oversized and ugly lamppost to replace the existing, at god knows what extra cost. In fact they installed a total of 3 of these ugly buggers and no one I have spoken to has been impressed.
I had particular concerns about loss of privacy due to the camera positioning.
Whether or not they spy into my living room (you’ll see from the image above that my living room is no longer private), all movements in and out of our home are monitored. This objection naturally received less than passing comment. The cameras cannot be pointed at something without higher authority it seems, but that defeats the purpose of prevention. Anyway I can now sit in my living room and watch the camera watching me – purposelessly. I mentioned the camera to the local youths who regularly congregate and deposit their litter outside about how they felt about being watched. No moral outrage, just derision and 2 fingers (at the camera). I feel so much safer now.
No evidential basis was presented by the applicant to justify the installation of CCTV in this specific area or even generally.
No case was made by ELC on crime reduction nor cost benefit grounds. As ever the public had no real say. No doubt the community council wrung its hands to the bone begging for such an investment, but didn’t think to question whether there were more cost effective options. I doubt very much there have been more than a handful of incidents that have been deterred or corroborating evidence which has resulted in anything more than a small fine, but we hang on to the allure of CCTV’s ability to provide grainy images for cheap Crimewatch style TV and ripping nordic crime yarns.
There is mounting evidence that CCTV is of the limited value in all but a small number of circumstances.
Not my bold assertion but a conclusion of a recent study, dated 2009, (http://db.c2admin.org/doc-pdf/Welsh_CCTV_review.pdf) which provides a careful and critical ‘meta analysis’ of a number of CCTV exercises. Decision makers and politicians really should catch up, as the orthodox position is being challenged not just by civil liberties groups, but by academics and by Government’s own advisers. The UK has more surveillance systems than any other country, yet levels of crime and the fear of crime are no lower than in comparable countries. In fact we boast in Scotland some of the highest levels of surveillance (since devolution).
Such installations can be detrimental to the quality of Dunbar town as a tourist destination, potentially heightening visitor anxieties about safety.
While CCTV may be commonplace in public spaces of cities, large towns, and travel hubs, for smaller destinations and especially historic areas, rural burghs and market towns it is a detractor. The measure is in conflict with other efforts to raise the quality of the historic streetscape implied in the Dunbar Conservation Area designation and articulated and embedded in the DCA Management Plan. But such things are blithely ignored by the repetition of the fool’s mantra: – ‘third witness’.
CCTV in Dunbar is a poor use of public resources, particularly at a time when budgets for essential front line services are under increasing pressure.
As an East Lothian resident for well over 20 years I’ve never experienced levels of crime or antisocial behaviour that would warrant significant investment in surveillance. Sure there’s plenty low level Anti Social Behaviour, but CCTV is the lazy technocrat’s response. Investing in a single extra local beat officer (or just letting them out more) and curtailing licences of certain establishments might just be the radical low-cost solution many local residents would support.